Sturgeon's Legacy - All Fur Coat and No Knickers
Professor James Mitchell wrote a thoughtful piece on Nicola Sturgeon's political legacy which I would summarise as - 'all fur coat and no knickers'.
Sturgeon leaves a divided SNP unfit to fight another referendum
She became first minister riding a wave of optimism and goodwill, but her legacy is one of disappointment and unfulfilled promises
"It became obvious that Sturgeon had an unbalanced skillset. She was a brilliant communicator and a great debater, but eloquence alone does not translate into improved outcomes for citizens. It did not help that she surrounded herself with fans and refused to listen to challenging voices. Something important was missing.
"There is always a tension between campaigning and governing. There was an added dimension for the SNP as it not only sought to govern but sought Scottish independence. There had always been a concern that the party would simply use government as a tool in its campaign."
Sturgeon leaves a divided SNP unfit to fight another referendum
She became first minister riding a wave of optimism and goodwill, but her legacy is one of disappointment and unfulfilled promises
By James Mitchell -The Times
It all started so well. No previous, or likely future, first minister inherited such favourable politics. The increase in independence support in the 2014 referendum was unprecedented and gave Nicola Sturgeon an unrivalled base.
There was phenomenal growth in SNP membership and income grew as a direct result. The party appeared united as never before in its turbulent history. The SNP all but swept the board in the 2015 UK general election after the referendum.
Less tangible, but at least as important, was the hope invested in the new first minister. There was a huge amount of goodwill towards Sturgeon amongst professionals across a range of devolved policy areas. She encouraged the view that the SNP government would turn to big social and economic issues with the same laser-like focus as it had to independence during the referendum.
Ambitious goals on the environment and closing the educational attainment gap were trumpeted. But as time went by the early hope and expectation waned. Goodwill gave way to disappointment, turning into disillusionment, disgruntlement and ultimately despair.
It became obvious that Sturgeon had an unbalanced skillset. She was a brilliant communicator and a great debater, but eloquence alone does not translate into improved outcomes for citizens. It did not help that she surrounded herself with fans and refused to listen to challenging voices. Something important was missing.
There is always a tension between campaigning and governing. There was an added dimension for the SNP as it not only sought to govern but sought Scottish independence. There had always been a concern that the party would simply use government as a tool in its campaign.
In 2007, the SNP managed to convince enough people it would not obsess about independence to be able to form a minority government. Support for breaking from the UK flatlined between 2007 and 2011. But a reputation for competence gave the party an overall majority.
Under Sturgeon, that reputation took a battering as proficiency took a back seat to campaigning. The SNP remained in office due to the high level of support for independence that had been inherited.
Sturgeon’s talent for symbolic politics had suggested so much more. Her gender-balanced cabinet and support for more women in prominent public positions was a step in the right direction but what about women across Scottish society?
She alienated campaigners for women’s rights and left a bitter legacy by ignoring warnings from people who might have expected to be listened on gender recognition. The tendency to exclude and attack alternative perspectives became a feature of her style of government all too often.
Her penchant for selfies and stunts became obsessive and shameless. At the SNP’s 2016 conference she promised a “root and branch review” of the care system and on cue a large group of young people who had been in care got to their feet waving paper hearts. This was Sturgeon’s SNP at its most cynical and contrived but most were willing to forgive — as long as she delivered. But delivery was never her strong point.
What she leaves behind is very different from what she inherited. It was always likely that many who had joined the SNP after the referendum would drift away but there could be no excuse for going along with fictional membership data.
She leaves behind a deeply and bitterly divided party and movement unfit to fight another referendum any time soon. The SNP’s finances are at best problematic. Support for independence remains stuck at about the same level as in 2014, and it is far from clear how committed these supporters are to it, despite the most propitious circumstances for advance.
Professor James Mitchell is a professor in politics and international relations at the University of Edinburgh
It all started so well. No previous, or likely future, first minister inherited such favourable politics. The increase in independence support in the 2014 referendum was unprecedented and gave Nicola Sturgeon an unrivalled base.
There was phenomenal growth in SNP membership and income grew as a direct result. The party appeared united as never before in its turbulent history. The SNP all but swept the board in the 2015 UK general election after the referendum.
Less tangible, but at least as important, was the hope invested in the new first minister. There was a huge amount of goodwill towards Sturgeon amongst professionals across a range of devolved policy areas. She encouraged the view that the SNP government would turn to big social and economic issues with the same laser-like focus as it had to independence during the referendum.
Ambitious goals on the environment and closing the educational attainment gap were trumpeted. But as time went by the early hope and expectation waned. Goodwill gave way to disappointment, turning into disillusionment, disgruntlement and ultimately despair.
It became obvious that Sturgeon had an unbalanced skillset. She was a brilliant communicator and a great debater, but eloquence alone does not translate into improved outcomes for citizens. It did not help that she surrounded herself with fans and refused to listen to challenging voices. Something important was missing.
There is always a tension between campaigning and governing. There was an added dimension for the SNP as it not only sought to govern but sought Scottish independence. There had always been a concern that the party would simply use government as a tool in its campaign.
In 2007, the SNP managed to convince enough people it would not obsess about independence to be able to form a minority government. Support for breaking from the UK flatlined between 2007 and 2011. But a reputation for competence gave the party an overall majority.
Under Sturgeon, that reputation took a battering as proficiency took a back seat to campaigning. The SNP remained in office due to the high level of support for independence that had been inherited.
Sturgeon’s talent for symbolic politics had suggested so much more. Her gender-balanced cabinet and support for more women in prominent public positions was a step in the right direction but what about women across Scottish society?
She alienated campaigners for women’s rights and left a bitter legacy by ignoring warnings from people who might have expected to be listened on gender recognition. The tendency to exclude and attack alternative perspectives became a feature of her style of government all too often.
Her penchant for selfies and stunts became obsessive and shameless. At the SNP’s 2016 conference she promised a “root and branch review” of the care system and on cue a large group of young people who had been in care got to their feet waving paper hearts. This was Sturgeon’s SNP at its most cynical and contrived but most were willing to forgive — as long as she delivered. But delivery was never her strong point.
What she leaves behind is very different from what she inherited. It was always likely that many who had joined the SNP after the referendum would drift away but there could be no excuse for going along with fictional membership data.
She leaves behind a deeply and bitterly divided party and movement unfit to fight another referendum any time soon. The SNP’s finances are at best problematic. Support for independence remains stuck at about the same level as in 2014, and it is far from clear how committed these supporters are to it, despite the most propitious circumstances for advance.
Professor James Mitchell is a professor in politics and international relations at the University of Edinburgh
